Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Optimal Coordination of Numerical and Directional

Over Current Relays using Hybrid Enhanced Grey
Wolf Harris Hawk Optimization Algorithm
Sani, Hannatu M.1 ; Amoo, A. L.2 ; Haruna, Y. S.3
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi,
Bauchi State, Nigeria

Corresponding Author:- Sani, Hannatu M.1

Abstract:- Growing demand as a result of the present
trend in the world's energy crises is increasingly causing
the distribution system to take mesh appearance. As a
result, directional overcurrent relays (DOCRs) have
become widely used for network coordination, protection
and control in both distribution and transmission
networks. Efficient and reliable network operation and
control, requires optimal coordination of the DOCRs
such that the overall operational time is minimized.
However, the relay parameter settings must be carefully
and optimally chosen (for example, Time Dial settings is
bounded between 0.05s to 1s) such that any fault
occurrence can be cleared as fast as possible, while still
ensuring that void network topologies are avoided. As a
result, setting the DOCR parameters is a challenging
problem and attempt has been made through nonlinear
optimization schemes to resolve this problem but poor
convergence, misdetection, higher coordination time and
complexity of solution became serious limitation to the
effective operation of DOCR most especially when the
network becomes large and complex. A quick convergent
hybrid meta-heuristic optimization approach is
suggested. The standard Grey-wolf optimizer (GWO)
and Harris-hawk optimizer (HHO) were both improved,
and a hybrid enhanced Grey-wolf Harris-hawk
optimizer (HEGWHHO) algorithm was created. The
effectiveness of the created HEGWHHO and its
derivatives—conventional GWO, conventional HHO,
hybrid GWO and HHO (HGWHHO), enhance GWO,
and enhanced HHO were examined and contrasted with
that of other pertinent algorithms in the literature.
Including the IEEE 8 and 30 Bus networks, three DOCR
coordination test systems, where utilized to test the
developed algorithm's performance. In terms of DOCR
setting optimization, all six algorithms that were taken
into consideration in this work were successful. The
created HEGWHHO has, nevertheless, been able to
further minimize the DOCR optimization goal function
in the IEEE test system by 4.51% and 8.84% lower than
the best performing methods in literature. Furthermore,
the overall order of decreasing performance of the six
algorithms investigated in this work have been found to
be HEGWHHO > HGWHHO > EGWO > EHHO >
GWO > HHO.
Keywords:- Directional Overcurrent Relay, Grey Wolf
Optimizer, Harris Hawk Optimizer, Hybrid Enhanced Grey
Wolf Harris Hawk Optimizer.
I. INTRODUCTION
The electrical power system network is susceptible to
failure because of system fault which are stochastic in
nature. Long-distance lines and distant locations are more
likely to experience faults. Thus, having a strong protection
system is one of the most crucial components of the power
system. By preventing disruptions in the energy supply and
shielding pricey equipment from damage, such as
generators, transformers, switchgear, and conductors
therefore, Persuasive protection system are usually
employed to help businesses avoid income loss. The
isolation of the problematic area with sufficient margins and
the avoidance of needless time delays are requirements for
proper coordination of the protective relays for the power
system. (Birla, Maheshwari & Gupta, 2006).
To achieve a minimum overall primary and backup
relay operating time while guaranteeing selectivity and
delivering reliable service, DOCR's operation involves
coordinating primary and backup relays. Both of these
relays have two types of settings: pickup tap setting (PTS)
and time dial setting (TDS). In order for the primary relay
nearest to the fault to respond quickly for operation before
all end-to-end relays, the PTS and TDS are set up in this
manner (i.e., backup relays). As a result, the coordination of
the DOCRs entails optimization problems, the resolution of
which involves the best modification of each relay's TDS
and PTS under certain limitations that depend on the
features of the relays. The directional over current relay
(DOCRs) coordination problem, on the other hand, becomes
a very complex mixed integer in a large-scale, bidirectional,
and interconnected (multi mesh) power system. To reduce
the overall operational time, one must adopt selectivity
criteria between the primary and backup relay while
adhering to operational constraints.
To prevent the healthy part of the system from being
affected by the fault, the DOCR relay system is designed to
detect a fault occurrence and quickly isolate the problematic
area of a network. To obtain the best value and the shortest

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1022

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023
operation time, TDS and PS are chosen as the two variables.
The optimal TDS and PS settings will reduce the total
working time of relays (Alee & Amree 2021). The
coordination issue at DOCR was initially resolved by trial
and error. Therefore, more iterations are required to arrive at
the ideal relay configuration.
To prevent wasteful trips, over current relays must be
able to distinguish between and respond sequentially to
faults in the protected zone. The settings of the over current
relays can be determined using a variety of techniques,
including trial and error, the conventional approach, and the
deterministic approach, among others. The over current
protection relay settings are calculated using the traditional
way. The traditional approach to configuring protection over
current relays needs a lot of inputs and does not always
result in the optimal coordination. The computation method
gets considerably more difficult and time-consuming when
there are several sources. The directional over current relay
coordination problem has been solved using deterministic
approaches, however the outcomes were subpar.
Deterministic approaches have the drawback of being
computationally expensive and ineffectual because the
findings are reliant on an initial guess of the principal relays.
In this paper, it is suggested to enhance the computed
over current protection relay settings by using the Hybrid
Enhanced Grey Wolf Harris Hawk Optimization
(HEGWHHO) method, being a relatively new stochastic
search technique.
 Problem Formulation
The growth in electricity demand has brought out an
increase in network size and complexity, this result in more
fault occurrences which increases the frequency and severity
of fault on the network and hence higher maintenance cost.
To secure networks, numerical and directional over current
relays are used in network protection coordination and
control. The conventional relay protection coordination
methods are mainly used in the industry for offline
calculation of the protective over current relay settings
(Maheswari & Gupta 2005). However, network operation
requires real-time relay settings for efficient and reliable
protection and control, Literatures have made attempt to
improve the coordination problem. In this regard,
researchers including (Panida & Peerapol, 2020), designed a
dual-directional overcurrent relay quaternary protection
system (dual-DOCR).
In general, complexity and lack of flexibility are some
of the setbacks of most of the other works. This research
work is set to develop a flexible approach for optimal
DOCR coordination, an algorithm with higher rate of
convergence to global minimal and to provide a better
strategy for network protection coordination that will
minimize cost.
IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
II. METHODOLOGY
Operationally, DOCR can be divided into primary and
backup relay systems. The DOCR coordination problem,
which is typically placed closest to the location of fault
occurrence, involves determining the best Time-Dial Setting
(TDS) and Peak-up current Setting (PS) of these relay types.
Other relays can use any primary relay as a backup, and vice
versa. The close-in and the far-bus fault coordination of
primary relays are frequently subclassified. This is often
used in literature to model a suitable relay coordination
objective function as will be seen later in this work.
However, this imposes constraint that, a Primary relay must
always operate before its corresponding Back-up
counterpart. Due to the non-convexity of DOCR problem a
hybrid enhanced Grey Wolf Harris Hawk optimizer
(HEGWHHO) is developed for optimal DOCR setting for
reliable network protection coordination.
DOCR starts to function when the input current
exceeds the sum of the plug settings PS and the current
transformation ratio (CTR) in a predetermined direction.
The current transformer in a DOCR allows the same kind of
DOCR to be used to protect different parts of a network with
current transformers of various sizes. Inverse definite
minimum time (IDMT) DOCRs are the most typical. The
International Electro-Technical Commission (IEC) proposed
Eqn. (1) for calculating the operational time of DOCR with
IDMT characteristic (Amraee et. al. 2012).
0.14×𝑇𝐷𝑆𝑖
𝑇𝑖,𝑗 = 𝐼𝑆𝐶,𝑗 0.02 (1)
((
𝐶𝑇𝑅𝑖 ×𝑃𝑆𝑖
) −1)
Furthermore, the short circuit current and the current
transformation ratio in Eqn. (1) are usually represented by
other user defined variables in most literatures
The DOCR objective function (OF) is often designed
to reduce the total operating time of the group of primary
relays. In this work, an objective function that takes into
account both the operational times of the near (primary) and
far (backup) relay is also taken into account. DOCRs are
expected to operate as fast as possible to prevent the effect
of a phenomenon called “built-up current”, while still
ensuring constraints satisfaction. The two objective
functions (Type-1 and Type-2) considered in this work, are
repressed by Eqns. (2) and (3) respectively. To compare the
proposed DOCR coordination technique to the current ones,
the most recent literature that took these aims into account is
used. Depending on the network and fault data that are
available, the Type-1 or Type-2 goal can be used. The Type-
1 objective function is shown in Eqn. (2) (Amraee et. al.,
2012).
𝑁𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑅 𝑝𝑟𝑖.
𝑂𝐹 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒−1 = ∑𝑗∈𝑀𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡(∑𝑖=1 𝑇𝑖,𝑗 ) (2)
1023
Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023
Where, ?? denotes the operating period of the ith main
relay when it guards the network against the jth fault and
denotes the total number of DOCR in the network. is a
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
collection of every network problem that has occurred.
Although equation also includes the Type-2 objective
function of Eqn. (3) (Thangaraj et. al., 2010).

𝑁 𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑐𝑙_𝑖𝑛. 𝑁
𝑓𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑓𝑎𝑟_𝑏𝑢𝑠.
𝑂𝐹 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒−2 = ∑𝑗∈𝑀𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 (∑𝑖=1
𝑐𝑙
𝑇𝑖,𝑗 + ∑𝑘=1 𝑇𝑘,𝑗 ) (3)

Where N is the total number of relays reacting to up Setting (PS) Constraint and Coordination Time Interval
close-in and far-bus faults, the operational Constraint.
time of the ith primary relay during a jth close-in fault, and
is the operational time of the kth primary during a jth far-bus III. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE
fault, relay. It cannot be measured via an equation (3),
𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑐𝑙_𝑖𝑛. 𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑓𝑎𝑟_𝑏𝑢𝑠. To optimize the DOCR optimization problem
𝑇𝑖,𝑗 and 𝑇𝑘,𝑗 are evaluated using Eqns. (4) and
formulated so far in the immediate sub-section above, an
(5) respectively (Thangaraj et. al., 2010). enhanced heuristic approach with high rate of convergence
𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑐𝑙_𝑖𝑛. 0.14×𝑇𝐷𝑆𝑖
to the global optimum solution is required due to its
𝑇𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑎𝑖 (4) complexity and higher dimensionality. In this regard, a
( −1)
𝑃𝑆𝑖×𝑏𝑖 hybrid enhanced Grey wolf and Harris hawk optimizer
(HEGWHHO) is proposed. The HEGWHHO is formed by
And the hybridization of enhanced versions of the existing Harris
hawk and Grey wolf optimizers.
𝑝𝑟𝑖_𝑓𝑎𝑟_𝑏𝑢𝑠. 0.14×𝑇𝐷𝑆𝑘
𝑇𝑘,𝑗 = 𝑐𝑘 (5)
( −1)
𝑃𝑆𝑘 ×𝑑𝑘  Proposed Enhanced Harris Hawk Optimizer (EHHO)
The proposed EHHO has three major modifications to
Where, 𝑎𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 , 𝑐𝑘 , and 𝑑𝑘 represents the ith and kth the existing HHO. This modification can be summarized
primary close-in and far-bus relay tripping coefficients using steps A, B, and C.
respectively.
A. In EHHO, each hawk (representing candidate solution),
The aforementioned objective functions are usually in the population of Harris hawks is represented by
minimized in an attempt to optimize the DOCR settings to normalized values instead of the actual values used in
achieve optimal network protection coordination. However, HHO. In this manner, solutions are further guided and
optimum DOCR coordination cannot be achieved without the search space are narrowed. This can also aid
satisfying a set of predefined constraints in the following solution manipulation as can be observed in step C.
subsection, a basic explanation of the DOCR optimization Let𝑋ℎℎ represent a candidate solution in HHO. Then𝑋ℎℎ
constraint is provided. The proposed DOCR optimization can be represented by Eqn. (18), in which the number of
was designed to satisfy 4 major constraints: Operational unknown/optimization variables is equal to 2NDOCR
time constraint, Time Dial Setting (TDS) Constraints, Peak-

𝑋ℎℎ = [𝑇𝐷𝑆1 , 𝑇𝐷𝑆2 𝑇𝐷𝑆3 , . . .𝑇𝐷𝑆𝑁𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑅 , P𝑆1 , P𝑆2 P𝑆3 , . . .P𝑆𝑁𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑅 ] (6)

On the other hand, in EHHO, each variable is represented by its normalized equivalent, as represented by Eqn. (3.20).

𝑋𝑒ℎℎ = [𝑇𝐷𝑆1𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 , 𝑇𝐷𝑆2𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑇𝐷𝑆3𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 , . . .𝑇𝐷𝑆𝑁𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚

𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑅
, P𝑆1𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 , P𝑆2𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 P𝑆3𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 , . . .P𝑆𝑁𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚
𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑅
] (7)

Where,

And

Furthermore, in EHHO, upon objective function evaluation, each normalized parameter in a solution, must be initially
decoded back to its actual equivalent value using Eqn. (22) or (23).

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1024

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
And

B. The preying behavior of the Alpha wolf in the existing GWO was incorporated into EHHO to form an additional exploitation
step, to boost its rate of convergence. The step can be described using the following pseudo code.

 Algorithm 1: Alpha Preying

 Input : t, T,𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉 and𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉,𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕

 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉,𝑨𝒍𝒑𝒉𝒂 = 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉,𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕
 if escape energy < 0
 for each element of 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ𝑡
% at trial t
 r1=rand(.); % r1 is a random number in the range [0,1]
 r2=rand(.); % r2 is a random number in the range [0,1]
 𝜏 =2× (1-(t/T)) % at trial t out of T
 A=2× 𝜏 ×r1-𝜏; % coefficient of a prey attack
 C=2×r2; % coefficient of closeness to a prey
 𝑡+1
𝑋𝑒ℎℎ 𝑡
= 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
− 𝐴 × |𝐶 × 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
− 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ 𝑡
| % 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 is the best solution
 end
 end
 𝑡+1
Output : 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ

C. The last modification step in the EHHO is referred to as enhanced exploitation. This was is similar to the linear interpolation
method. The enhanced exploitation can be represented using the following pseudo code.

 Algorithm 2: Enhanced Exploitation

 Input : 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉 , 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉,𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕

 Decode 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉 , 𝑿𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒉,𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 to obtain 𝑿𝒕𝒉𝒉 , 𝑿𝒕𝒉𝒉,𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕using (3.23) and (3.24)
 𝑡
𝑓𝑒ℎℎ = 𝑂𝐹(𝑋ℎℎ 𝑡 ) 𝑡
% evaluate the objective function/fitness of 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ
 𝑡
𝑓𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡
= 𝑂𝐹(𝑋ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡
) % evaluate the objective function/fitness of 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎

 % evaluate the total position uncertainty coefficient

𝑡 𝑡
𝑋𝑒ℎℎ 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡
 𝑡+1
𝑋𝑒ℎℎ =( 𝑡 + 𝑡 ) × 𝑓 % predict the most probable position of prey
𝑓𝑒ℎℎ 𝑓𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡
 Output : 𝑡+1
𝑋𝑒ℎℎ
𝑡
Finally, the proposed EHHO can be described using Algorithm 3. In the EHHO each candidate solution 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ is upgraded to a
𝑡+1 𝑡+1∗ 𝑡 𝑡+1
new solution𝑋𝑒ℎℎ , which is further upgraded to another𝑋𝑒ℎℎ , updating the best solution from 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 to 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 and then to
𝑡+1∗
𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 .

 Algorithm 3: EHHO

 Input: T
 𝑡
Initialize 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ
 𝑡 𝑡
Set 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ
 While t is less than T
 Perform the HHO Exploration and Exploitation steps
 Update 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ𝑡 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡
 Perform Alpha Preying
 Update 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ𝑡 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡
 Perform Enhanced Exploitation
 Update 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ𝑡 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡
 t=t+1;
 end

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1025

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 𝑡
Output : 𝑋𝑒ℎℎ,𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡

 Optimization Algorithms Enhancement

The proposed EGWO has two major modifications to the existing GWO. The first modification is similar to that of the
𝑡
proposed EHHO, where by, each wolf is represented by its normalized equivalent, denoted by𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 . Unlike the Enhanced
Exploitation used by EHHO, the EGWO uses Enhanced Preying to interpolate the next possible position. This new solution search
step can be describe using the pseudocodes presented in (Sani, 2023).

 Algorithm 4: Enhanced Preying

 𝑡
Input: 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
and𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
 Execute Algorithm 2, using 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡+1
to evaluate 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎
 𝑡 𝑡 𝑡+1
Execute Algorithm 2, using 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 to evaluate 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎
 Execute Algorithm 2, using 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎 𝑡+1
to evaluate 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
 𝑡+1
𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡+1
= (𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡+1
+𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡+1
+𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎 )/3
 𝑡+1
Output : 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤

Similarly, like the EHHO, the proposed EGWO is achieved by initially performing the existing GWO steps on a set of
normalized solution candidates while still performing Enhanced Preying on each solution. The EGWO algorithm can be further
described using Algorithm 5.

 Algorithm 5: EGWO

 Input: T
 𝑡
Initialize 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤
 𝑡
Set 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡

 𝑡
Set 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
= 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤
 𝑡
Set 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎 = 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡

 While t is less than T

 Perform the GWO Preying steps
 Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤𝑡 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
 Perform Enhanced Preying
 Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
 t=t+1;
 End

 Proposed Hybridized Enhanced Harris Hawk & Grey Wolf Optimizer (HEGWHHO)
As mentioned earlier, the proposed HEGWHHO is formed by the hybridization of the developed EHHO and EGWO.
Algorithm 6 presents the suggested HEGWHHO's pseudo code. Six different optimizer variants are generally taken into account
in this study, three of which are constructed in this chapter and another three of which are already known from the literature. The
optimizers include: HHO, EHHO, GWO, EGWO, HGWHHO and HEGWHHO. The resulting performance of this optimizers are
compared with one another and with best result so far in literature, via 3 IEEE test system for network protection coordination.
These test systems include: the IEEE 8, 15, and 30 bus networks. MATLAB codes for the EHHO, EGWO and HEGWHHO are
presented in Appendix A, B, and C respectively.

 Algorithm 6: HEHHGWO

 Input: T , k
Xt Xt t
Xt
 𝑡
Initialize 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 and set egw, Alpha
, egw, Beta
and X egw, Delta = egw
.
 While t is less than T
 r=rand(.); % r is a random number in the range [0,1]
 If r < 0.5
 Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤𝑡 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 using EHHO over k trials
 Perform Enhanced Exploitation
 Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤𝑡 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎
 Else

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1026

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 𝑡
Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎 using EGWO over k trials
 Perform Enhanced Preying
 𝑡
Update 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎 𝑡
, 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐵𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑡
and 𝑋𝑒𝑔𝑤,𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
 End
 t=t+1;
 end
 Output : Xt
egw, Alpha

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Testing on IEEE Buses

Here, the results for the simulation scenario for DOCR coordination optimization are collated, examined and contrasted with
the ones found in the literature. Two (2) IEEE test system networks (Bus 8 and 30) and their corresponding data were used for
simulation. Six (6) optimizer variants (HHO, EHHO, GWO, EGWO, HGWHHO, and HEGWHHO) were compared to
demonstrate the order of increasing performance and effectiveness.

Table 4.1: The Optimization Parameter Settings & Scenario (Cases 1 to 3) Setups
Number of No. of No. of DOCR HEHH Number
Case Operational
IEEE Network Wolves / Trials Exponent 𝑵𝑫𝑶𝑪𝑹 GWO 𝜺𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 (P/B) Relay
No. Time Equation
Buses Hawks (T) (n) (k) Pair
1 8 28 100 1 14 14 0 20 (3.1)
2 30 136 100 1 68 68 0 122 (3.1)

 Case 1: IEEE 8-Bus network

Another medium scale DOCR optimization problem is simulated using the IEEE 8-Bus network which has 14 DOCRs and
20 P/B pair constraints. The TDS, PS, and Tij optimization results are presented in Table 4.2(a), whereas, those of the P/B pair
constraints are presented in Table 4.2(b). Furthermore, the comparative analysis results for the 8-Bus network are also presented in
Table 4.3.

Table 4.2(a): The DOCR TDS, PS, and Tij for IEEE 8-Bus Network (HEGWHHO)
DOCR Settings Ti,j
DOCR No.
TDS PS
1 0.1078 2 0.388187431
2 0.248 2.5 0.740904894
3 0.2164 2.5 0.678257779
4 0.1563 2.5 0.583312036
5 0.1 2.5 0.497823931
6 0.1635 2.5 0.481837341
7 0.2301 2.5 0.610917918
8 0.1655 2.5 0.488296095
9 0.1382 2.5 0.520363839
10 0.1648 2.5 0.606281977
11 0.1752 2.5 0.6612686
12 0.2494 2.5 0.746497864
13 0.1 2.5 0.428785394
14 0.2311 2.5 0.614703302

Table 4.2(b): P/B Relay Pair Constraints for IEEE 8-Bus Network (HEGWHHO)
P/B Pair
S/No
Primary
1 1
2 2
3 2
4 3
5 4
6 5
7 6
8 6
CTI
Backup
6 0.300093197
1 0.305321107
7 0.300313829
2 0.300060986
3 0.300000742
4 0.300274873
5 0.544725477
14 0.56955385

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1027

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
9 7 5 0.415644899
10 7 13 0.808449342
11 8 7 0.552922629
12 8 9 0.427012277
13 9 10 0.300151286
14 10 11 0.301497953
15 11 12 0.30005782
16 12 13 0.672869397
17 12 14 0.304893327
18 13 8 0.300854433
19 14 1 0.431522699
20 14 9 0.300605069

Table 4.3: Comparison of the IEEE 8-Bus Result

TDS, PS, & Ti,j CTI
Method/ Reference OF(s) % Performance NFE
Result Table. Result Table.
MPSO [Zeineldin et.al. 2006] 17.33 0.00 - - -
GA [Noghabi et.al. 2009] 11.001 36.52
GA-LP [Noghabi et.al. 2009] 10.949 36.82 - - -
BBO-LP [Albasri et.al. 2015] 8.7556 49.48 - - -
BIP [Correa et.al. 2015] 8.6944 49.83 - - -
SOA [Amraee et.al. 2012] 8.4271 51.37 - - -
SA-LP [Alexandre et.al. 2020] 8.4271 51.37 - - -
HEGWHHO 8.0474384 53.56 396800 4.8(a) 4.8(b)
HGWHHO 8.43689889 51.32 1097531 1/G1 1/G1
EGWO 10.8830656 37.20 4808401 2/G2 2/G2
GWO 13.6106797 21.46 3500724 3/G3 3/G3
EHHO 11.9518272 31.03 4209857 4/G4 4/G4
HHO 16.6196382 4.10 2007187 5/G5 5/G5

In just 396800 function evaluations, the HEGWHHO was able to minimize the DOCR total operational time to 8.0474384s,
which is 53.56% lower than that obtained using the MPSO [Zeineldin et.al. 2006]. HEGWHHO was also found to supersede the
best performing algorithm in literature (SA-LP [Alexandre et.al. 2020]) by more than 2% reduction in objective function value.
The results of this scenario shows that the DOCRs have a district TDS setting, unlike those of case 3. The algorithm was not
restricted by the boundary conditions of TDS. However, most of the PSs are the same (bounded by the upper limit of the PS
constraints). These results depict a slowly varying operational time that ranges between 0.407s and 0.796s, which is due to the
constant PS values.

Fig 4.1a: Comparison of the IEEE 8-Bus Results

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1028

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig 4.1b: Comparison of NFE IEEE 8-Bus Result

The comparative analysis results for the 8-Bus network of the objective function and that of number of function evaluation
are also presented using bar chat as shown in Figure 4.1a and 4.1b.

 Case 2: IEEE 30-Bus network

The network has 68 DOCRs with 122 P/B relay pair coordination time constraints. The data used in this case are as
presented in (Alexandre et. al., 2020).

Table 4.4: TDS, PS & 𝑇𝑖,𝑗 Results for the IEEE 30-Bus Network (HEGWHHO)
DOCR Settings DOCR Settings
𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒄𝒓 𝑻𝒊,𝒋 𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒄𝒓 𝑻𝒊,𝒋
TDS PS TDS PS
1 0.3388 2 0.4293 35 0.2447 1.5 0.27688
2 0.3392 2 0.3395 36 0.4113 2.5 0.48896
3 0.3166 1.5 0.3385 37 0.2838 1.5 0.32924
4 0.3167 1.5 0.337 38 0.4125 1.5 0.50094
5 0.1453 1.5 0.1699 39 0.4365 2.5 0.5387
6 0.2798 1.5 0.2939 40 0.1612 1.5 0.18329
7 0.4266 1.5 0.4494 41 0.3233 1.5 0.3386
8 0.3525 1.5 0.387 42 0.5526 2.5 0.58619
9 0.3173 1.5 0.3201 43 0.4652 2 0.50104
10 0.199 1.5 0.2205 44 0.5024 2 0.5287
11 0.2921 1.5 0.2944 45 0.2193 1.5 0.24142
12 0.1 2 0.129 46 0.3152 2.5 0.37806
13 0.2277 1.5 0.2573 47 0.1034 2 0.17363
14 0.1988 1.5 0.2195 48 0.1343 1.5 0.15926
15 0.5259 1.5 0.5388 49 0.4592 1.5 0.45019
16 0.5619 1.5 0.5739 50 0.2517 1.5 0.259
17 0.156 1.5 0.1934 51 0.3146 1.5 0.32439
18 0.397 1.5 0.4271 52 0.6028 1.5 0.6162
19 0.1016 1.5 0.1227 53 0.1473 1.5 0.17295
20 0.3713 1.5 0.3902 54 0.344 2 0.39532
21 0.2712 1.5 0.2938 55 0.4677 1.5 0.5161
22 0.1129 1.5 0.1439 56 0.1012 1.5 0.1264
23 0.1038 1.5 0.1965 57 0.2933 1.5 0.32842
24 0.103 1.5 0.2103 58 0.3786 2.5 0.48223
25 0.422 2.5 0.4723 59 0.1 1.5 0.1252
26 0.4124 1.5 0.4091 60 0.4881 1.5 0.05
27 0.1475 1.5 0.161 61 0.2766 1.5 0.31893
28 0.475 1.5 0.5776 62 0.1 1.5 0.1225
29 0.2379 1.5 0.244 63 0.1897 1.5 0.20042
30 0.5321 2.5 0.5619 64 0.1002 1.5 0.11463

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1029

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
31 0.1 1.5 0.1168 65 0.1 1.5 0.1148
32 0.1 1.5 0.1166 66 0.1001 1.5 0.11632
33 0.2568 2 0.3328 67 0.279 1.5 0.30701
34 0.1437 1.5 0.1691 68 0.1 1.5 0.1184

Table 4.5: Optimal P/B DOCR pair CTI Results for the IEEE 30-Bus Network (HEGWHHO)
P/B Pair P/B Pair P/B Pair
Primary Backup CTI Primary Backup CTI Primary Backup CTI
1 4 0.300021 19 18 0.5681305 41 35 0.5654121
2 6 0.4421001 20 24 0.3001691 41 39 0.5742391
2 8 0.3001435 21 9 0.3000042 41 44 0.5382576
2 10 0.4391356 21 13 0.3001467 42 48 0.3003987
3 2 0.3000764 21 18 0.3000758 43 35 0.300251
4 12 0.4891843 21 20 0.3001033 43 39 0.300026
5 1 0.8091396 22 23 0.3002888 43 42 0.3001114
5 8 0.6151799 23 19 0.3004642 44 56 0.3003079
5 10 0.7378824 24 21 0.3000969 45 37 0.3001395
6 11 0.3000767 25 28 0.3000076 46 25 0.3000471
6 14 0.3002279 25 30 0.3000706 47 41 0.3000286
7 1 0.3001335 25 32 0.8910224 48 50 0.3000672
7 6 0.3000241 26 45 0.300319 49 47 0.3000952
7 10 0.3002395 27 26 0.4339309 50 27 0.3000063
8 16 0.3000264 27 30 0.7232908 51 29 0.3001539
9 1 0.494364 27 32 1.4696405 52 31 0.3708571
9 6 0.4814591 28 49 0.3001172 52 54 0.3001488
9 8 0.3301173 29 26 0.300041 53 31 1.1557561
10 13 0.4321278 29 28 0.6882493 53 51 0.3000034
10 18 0.4318952 29 32 1.308214 54 55 0.3000595
10 20 0.4312461 30 52 0.3000476 54 58 0.3001239
10 22 0.3254564 31 26 0.5083779 55 43 0.3000776
11 3 0.3001701 31 28 0.8974566 56 53 0.3469507
12 5 0.3353224 31 30 0.8024285 56 58 0.7590489
12 14 0.5700197 32 51 0.3557989 57 53 0.300219
13 5 0.3002038 32 54 0.4831772 57 55 0.4107261
13 11 0.3566063 33 36 0.3001292 58 62 0.3103581
14 9 0.4290763 33 38 0.3001515 59 57 0.3002888
14 18 0.4145557 34 40 0.300001 59 62 0.3001002
14 20 0.4141009 35 34 0.3754174 61 57 0.3001847
14 22 0.3588299 35 38 0.3957461 62 64 0.3004572
15 7 0.3001003 36 39 0.3293317 62 66 0.3006087
16 17 0.300466 36 42 0.3313347 63 61 0.3000379
17 9 0.5079218 36 44 0.300053 63 66 0.3003526
17 13 0.4873758 37 34 0.3001412 64 68 0.6368427
17 20 0.4860731 37 36 0.301742 65 61 0.3002996
17 22 0.3003148 38 46 0.3001672 65 64 0.3003992
18 15 0.3000564 39 33 0.300256 66 67 0.30003
19 22 0.3525479 40 35 0.8129264 67 63 0.3002993
19 9 0.5907718 40 42 0.8773834 68 65 0.4305853
19 13 0.5683416 40 44 0.813353 - - -

This coordination problem can be considered as a large DOCR optimization problem. Conventionally, 8 of the P/B relay pair
constraints are usually relaxed (Alexandre et. al., 2020), for simplicity. However, none of the constraints is relaxed in this work.
Table 4.6 presents the results for optimum TDS and PS setting of the IEEE 30-bus network.

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1030

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 4.6: Comparison of the IEEE 30-Bus Result
TDS, PS, & CTI
Method/ Reference OF(s) % Performance
NFE Ti,j Result Table Result Table
SA-LP
22.3936 34.70 - - -
[Alexandre et.al. 2020]
HEGWHHO 20.4143872 40.47 1176680 1/I1 2/I2
HEGWHHO 20.92156442 38.99 1031680 4.12 4.13
HGWHHO 21.71341551 36.68 6226180 3/I3 4/D4
EGWO 22.14644165 35.42 7172680 5/I5 6/I6
GWO 30.21781075 11.89 8171180 7/I7 8/I8
EHHO 22.3855537 34.72 8834610 9/I9 10/I10
HHO 34.29678479 0 9296680 11/I11 12/I12

In this scenario, the HEGWHHO outperformed all
other techniques with a total operational time of 20.4143872
(over 1176680 function evaluations), and 20.92156442
(over 1031680 function evaluations). All constraints were
satisfied by its solution. Table 4.8 presents the optimum CTI
obtained by the developed HEGWHHO with 𝜀𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 0. The
optimization results obtained by the other optimizers have
also been presented Appendix D. In Table 4.8, all except
HHO and GWO optimizers, outperformed the existing best
algorithm in literature. Even though the P/B pair constraints
are not relaxed in this work, the proposed optimizers
performed better that the best existing strategy presented by
SA-LP (Alexandre et. al., 2020). The order of decreasing
performance achieved by the optimizers/method can be
represented as HEGWHHO > HGWHHO > EGWO >
EHHO > SA-LP (Alexandre et. al., 2020) > GWO >HHO.
Generally, in this work, the HEGWHHO algorithm have
demonstrated superiority over its counterparts, with an
outstanding performance of 40.47% over the existing worse
algorithm (HHO). It has further minimized the objective
function by 5% lower as compared to the best existing
method in literature, SA-LP (Alexandre et. al., 2020).
The comparative analysis results for the 30-Bus
network of the objective function and that of number of
function evaluation are also presented using bar chat as
shown in Figure 4.2a and 4.2b.

Fig 4.2a Comparison of the IEEE 30-Bus Result

Fig 4.2b: Comparison of the IEEE 30-Bus Result

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1031

Volume 8, Issue 7, July – 2023
B. Performance Analysis of the HEGWHHO Algorithm
As described earlier, the HEGWHHO and its 5
variants including the HHO, EHHO, GWO, EGWO, and
HGWHHO, have been presented in this work. However,
HEGWHHO have demonstrated an outstanding performance
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
over all of the algorithms, and other similar once presented
in literature. Table 4.9 presents a summary of the results for
the six simulation cases, and the best objective function
values reported in relevant literatures.

Table 4.7: Result Summary of the Simulation Scenarios and Comparison

Case No. Number of Buses NDOCR CPU Time (s) NFE OF (s) HEGWHHO Best OF in Literature
8.4271s SA-LP
1 8 14 0.0685 396800 8.0474
(Alexandre et. al., 2020)
22.3936s SA-LP
2 30 68 0.9899 1176680 20.4144
(Alexandre et. al., 2020)

V. CONCLUSION [8]. Padej, P., Uthitsunthorn, D. & Kulworawanichpong,

T. (2012). Application of arterial Bees Colony
The developed HEGWHHO algorithm has algorithm for optimal overcurrent relay coordination
demonstrated a guaranteed convergence rate over a problems: ECTI Transactions on Electrical
considerably low simulation time, as such, the proposed Engineering. Electronics and Communications, 10(1),
models can be readily deployed in real-time network [9]. Thangaraj, R., Millie, P. & Deep, K. (2010). Optimal
protection scenarios. In general, the developed HEGWHHO coordination of over-current relays using modified
was able to further minimize the DOCR optimization differential evolution algorithms. Engineering
objective function of the test systems by 4.51%, and 8.84%, Applications of Artificial Intelligence 23(5), 820-829.
lower than the best performing methods in literature. This [10]. Thararak, P. & Jirapong, P. (2020). Implementation
proves that our proposed approach could go a long way in of optimal protection coordinationfor microgrids with
proving reliable solution to DOCR setting problems. It also distributed generations using quaternary protection
demonstrates the possibility of using the HEGWHHO as a scheme. Hindawi Journal of Electrical and Computer
tool for real time protection coordination application. Engineering, Article ID 2568652, 13
pagesBhumkittipich,
REFERENCES [11]. Zeineldin, H. H., El-Saadany, E. F. & Salama, M. M.
A. (2006). Optimal coordination of overcurrent relays
[1]. Amraee, T. (2012). Coordination of directional using a modified particle swarm optimization. Electr.
overcurrent relays using seeker algorithm, IEEE Power Syst. Res. 76 (11), 988–995.
Trans. Power Deliv. 27(3), 1415–1422.
[2]. Alexander A. Kida (2020). An improved simulated
annealing–linear programming hybrid algorithm
applied to the optimal coordination of directional
overcurrent relays, volume 181,
[3]. Albasri, F.A., Alroomi, A.R. & Talaq, J. H. (2015).
Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent
relays using biogeography-based optimization
algorithms. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 30(4), 1810–
1820.
[4]. Birla, D., Rudra, P. M. & Hari, O. G. (2006). Time-
overcurrent relay coordination: A review.
International Journal of Emerging Electric Power
Systems 2(2), 20-29.
[5]. Corrêa, R., Cardoso, G., de Araújo, O. C. & Mariotto,
L. (2015). Online coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using binary integer programming.
Electr. Power System Res. 127, 118–125.
[6]. Noghabi, A. S., Sadeh, J. & Mashhadi, H. R. (2009).
Considering different network topologies in optimal
overcurrent relay coordination using a hybrid GA.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 24 (4), 1857–1863.
[7]. Panida Thararak and Peerapol Jirapong,
Implementation of Optimal Protection Coordination
for Microgrids with Distributed Generations Using
Quaternary Protection Scheme, vol 2020

IJISRT23JUL335 www.ijisrt.com 1032